13 December 2008

Name that heresy! (RESULTS)


This pic is a great illustration of a common Christian heresy. . .

Do you know what that heresy is?

Do you know why it is a heresy?

Do you know why so many of us fall into this heresy?

I will hold all comments until everyone has a chance to guess. . .

First one to guess correctly gets a Mass for their intentions!



RESULTS! Yes, the pic represents the heresy, pelagianism. . .the idea that man can not only do the good without God's grace, but can save himself through his good deeds. Augustine worked out the basics of our Catholic understanding of grace and free will while engaging the British monk, Pelagius in debate.


Looks like "The Shepherd" was the first to answer correctly. . .now, if The Shepherd turns out to be a bishop. . .well, I may have to go to the next closest lay answer. . . ;-)

I am very pleased with how many of you came up with the correct answer even if you didn't know the name of the heresy!

Thanks for playing. . .Name That Heresy!


12 December 2008

Is Blair really pro-choice/pro-abortion?

Just stepped back into my room from listening to Cherie Blair speak here at the Angelicum. . .

I will give a full report when I have had a chance to read the text of her talk.

Initial observations:

Great historical survey of human rights as they relate to women.

Good intro to the secular philosophy of the Declaration on Human Rights.

Good job placing the Catholic Church in the history of the struggle for recognition of human rights, though she said that the Church was not involved in the human rights struggle until well into the 20th century. Dominicans from the University of Salamanca fought against slavery in the New World in the 17th century using primitive notions of human rights and dignity.

Made several predictable and annoying points about "women's rights" in the Church; e.g., "more women in the curia would give the Church different priorities." The Church has one priority regardless of the sex of those who work in the curia: preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

From her remarks and her answer to questions afterward, I must conclude that Blair is pro-contraception but not pro-choice on abortion. This is a tentative conclusion on my part. I want to read the text itself before saying anything too firmly. Her political and charitable associations would make it very difficult to conclude that she is not pro-abortion; however, she seemed to reject outright any difficulty with Church teaching on this issue.

More later. . .

11 December 2008

'Lupe!

Our Lady of Guadalupe is the patroness of my priestly vocation. Today I will concelebrate the Mass and pray for the intentions of all those young men I know who are discerning vocations to the priesthood. I will ask our Lady to strengthen their hearts and clear their minds so that they can say YES! to the Lord's call to serve in his ordained ministry.

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer

Holy Mary, who under the title of Our Lady of Guadalupe are invoked as Mother by the men and women of Mexico and of Latin America, encouraged by the love that you inspire in us, we once again place our life in your motherly hands.

May you, who are present in these Vatican Gardens, hold sway in the hearts of all the mothers of the world and in our own heart. With great hope, we turn to you and trust in you.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!

Oh, but they do carry pom-poms...

In the Jesuit tradition

Diogenes from Catholic Culture

The newly elected US Congressman:

* was once a former Jesuit novice, before realizing that his calling was to marriage and a secular career.

* remains an active Catholic layman-- in fact, served a term on the National Advisory Council to the US bishops' conference.

* won a special-election victory over an incumbent who is facing bribery charges.

* is the son of immigrants, whose father spent years in a Communist prison camp.

* has worked primarily as an attorney for immigrants.
* is solidly pro-life.

So why isn't Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao a poster boy for Catholic activism? Why isn't be being asked to speak on the campus of every Jesuit university in the country? Why aren't editors of America magazine shaking their pom-poms?

And please don't tell me that America editors don't carry pom-poms.

This guy cracks me up every time!

You just might need them some day. . .







If
you have any extra cash or transferable stock lying around, send them to these folks. . .

I have the distinct feeling that we are going to need their services quite often in the next, oh, four to eight years. . .

More on Blair

LifeSiteNews has more info on the on-going brouhaha over the Angelicum's invitation to pro-abortion Catholic, Cherie Blair.

Below you will find a response from Sr. Helen Alford, OP, dean of the social sciences faculty here at the Angelicum. I have made my position on this invitation clear in the post below and in the comboxes: Blair would not be my first choice for a speaker; however, as a Dominican university engaged in the education of the Church's future lay and clerical leaders, I believe we are duty-bound to demonstrate to our students the Order's ancient tradition of disputationes, that is, the public airing of differences so that the Truth may be shown triumphant.

I am truly confused by the negative reaction to this invitation. The university is in no way honoring Blair. She's not receiving an honorary degree. She's not being asked to speak at commencement. She's not being asked to raise money. . .no buildings or rooms or hallways will be named after her. . .no momuments, plaques, gardens or gazebos will be dedicated to her. She is here to lecture on an academic topic of interest to social scientists, and she will be balanced with another international speaker, a pro-life Catholic woman from Norway. There will be time for questions & challenges. Student attendance at the event is not required. I don't understand the problem.

If those opposed to Blair speaking at the Angelicum are seeking to punish her for her pro-abortion views, then I suggest you focus your attention on her bishop in the U.K. The idea that a Catholic university cannot tackle the disputed questions of the day is bizarre. The University of Dallas is one of the most traditional Catholic liberal arts colleges I know of and on faculty there are Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, and even. . .GASP!!!. . .a Scotist or two (that's pushing the line, I'll concede.). Without a single negative comment from anyone I taught a senior/grad student seminar on "postmetaphysical theologies." We read Heidegger, Nietzsche, several deconstructionsist theologians, a few postmodernists-liberals, one postmetaphysical Catholic, and one or two so-called "death of god" theologians. The university survived the trauma.

And the Church will survive Cherie Blair's pro-abortion presence at the Angelicum.

09 December 2008

Has the fat friar sung yet...?

In response to a heart-felt and motherly admonition from a faithful reader, I am writing this follow-up to my recent request for prayer. . .

In the last week, I have been hit with several small "attacks" and one big one. Taken separately, these are really nothing all that serious. However, taken together, on top of feeling overwhelmed with the task of "catching up" on my philosophy reading and struggling with Italian, I have allowed the stress to become an excuse for me to grow a bit lax in my observance.

Laxity in observance leads to less immunity from attack. . .and so on.

A lot of what hit this week has come from my past. Old faces and personalities popping up in odd places. . .renewing long-lost friendships. . .some less healthy than others. . .getting myself stupidly embroiled in a conflict with another religious over a petty thing. . .having difficulty getting some of my meds through customs in Milan. . .having more difficulty getting one of my RX's rewritten in the States. . .continuing difficulty sleeping more than a few hours a night. . .all kinds of temptations against obedience. . .as I said, taken separately, none of these alone would be dangerous. . .but they all hit simultaneously! And when one tends to melancholy, introspection, cynicism, and crankiness already. . .watch out!!!

So, where I am now? Well, pretty much all of this is still on-going. I was told yesterday that I won a scholarship from the university! WooHoo! And I think there's some movement on the teaching front that looks good. I am excited about my writing project. . .though the thought writing another dissertation is somewhat intimidating.

Regardless, I am feeling stronger spiritually and more prepared to tackle the demons. No doubt this development is the direct result of the generous response I have received to my plea for prayer. For this I am very, very grateful. I didn't intend to worry any of you with my request. Being a gregarious introvert, sometimes my internal struggles sort of spring out sideways and tend to look more dramatic than they really are. I don't mean to downplay the stress I'm feeling. That would be counterproductive. However, I don't want to exaggerate either.

Last night, I took a break from reading and did two things that helped me tremendously. First, I watched an hour long documentary on the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Talk about having your problems put in proper perspective! Then, after this hour of depression, I watched about twenty minutes of Babies Laughing vids on youtube. The combo of genocide and babies proved therapeutic.

Again, sorry for the drama! And grazie mille for the prayers. . .

Fr. Philip, OP


08 December 2008

Back in Black (and White)!

I'm back! Had a rough weeks, but all is well. . .as usual. . .

Among four or five other smaller issues that popped up over the week, I found out that, contrary to initial reports, I will need the Ph.D. in philosophy BEFORE I can start teaching in Rome. My initial understanding was that I would complete the Ph.L. in philosophy and begin teaching as a regular faculty member, teaching in the undergrad core. The Ph.D. I hold already would serve as the fulfillment of the "canonical" pre-requisite for teaching on a pontifical faculty (along with the license, a pontifical degree). However, because the Vatican has recently signed on to the Bologna Accords, univeristry accreditation in the E.U. has become almost as restrictively categorical as it is in the States.

I have been assured that I can teach as an assitant to a professor in the department while I write the dissertation. Since there was never any instructions from my province to take the Ph.D. and since I have a Ph.D. already and since I have been a university teacher for 22 years, the prospect of serving (once again!) as a teaching assistant at 45 years old is not all that attractive.

Am I being prideful? Yup. Still working on it. . .

Now, if I have to write a doctoral dissertation in addition to the license thesis, you all know what this means, right? Exactly! Time to visit the WISH LIST! It's amazing what one little book will do to help a weepy Dominican dry his prideful tears. . .hehehe. . .not to mention help him with those ever-elusive secondary sources.

One a less whiny/shameless note. . .I concelebrated Mass yesterday (along with about 100 other priests) at the North American College with John Cardinal Foley! The NAC celebrated its patronal feast, the Immaculate Conception, and its 150th birthday. Had a great time with the seminarians, with some Texas friends, and of course, the food was great.

Three for the Big I.C.

Three homilies for the Immaculate Conception. . .

Most Dangerous Announcement
(2005)

Mary's YES is Our Mission (2006)

Mary: Deathless Mother, Church (2007)

When Idiots Do Theology

The Los Angeles Times, on its way to a financial bankruptcy to match its ethical bankruptcy, takes multiple potshots at the Church on its way (further) down. . .

And Newsweek, that bastion of biblical brainpower and unbiased Babel's Tower of integrity and grit, shows us how 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian scholarship is wrong and that the bible actually supports same-sex "marriage."

As I wrote to the Catholic friend who sent me the link: "The question I would love to ask the writer is: if your thesis is true, why in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious history has there never been a single instance of a same-sex 'marriage' being celebrated as exemplary for Christians and Jews? You would think that if scripture is pressing the point that love and fidelity are more important that the sex of the couple, then one very powerful way of showing this would be to give us an example of a loving, faithful same-sex marriage. Yet, none exist. And we must be careful not to confuse same-sex friendships (Jonathan and David) with sexually active, religiously recognized, sacramental marriages celebrated in the Bible."

I believe it is Mark Shea who sensibly warns Catholics to run and hide any time the media purports to wade into religious discussions and provide "perspective."

07 December 2008

..and don't you forget it...

When temptation attacks. . .the walls of the convent are the sieves of freedom; the bars of the monastery the gates of liberty!

05 December 2008

Pray!

Please keep me in prayer this weekend. . .I received some news yesterday that has shaken me a bit. . .nothing tragic or earth-shattering. . .just some developments that might require some adjustments in plans.

These recent developments along with an interpersonal conflict, a difficulty with my medical insurance, a recurring temptation against my vows (no, not that), and a problem sleeping more than a few hours a night have left me scattered, testy, and open to more and more spiritual malaise.

In other words, business as usual. Pray hard.

[UPDATE: I just got a clear message from You Know Who that I am not capable of charitable discourse right now, so no posts this weekend. Not until I can get my act together.]

Angelicum dean responds to Blair inquiry

In response to my inquiry about the invitation to Cherie Blair to speak at the Angelicum, I received the following reply from Sr. Helen Alford, OP, dean of the school of social sciences:

Thanks for your message and your patience in waiting for a reply. As you can imagine, there is a lot going on at the moment.

Here's the bit I sent to EWTN this afternoon:

"Thank you for your interest in our conference. By inviting Mrs Blair, we, as a faculty of social sciences, are following the example of the Pope’s own social sciences institute, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, based in the Vatican itself. Mrs Blair was invited to make an address to its 2006 plenary assembly, which focused on children and young people. After her speech, as a spontaneous act of kindness, the Pope received Mrs Blair in a private audience, despite the fact that, as it was an unexpected invitation, she was not dressed in the protocol black. She was invited to speak in an academic capacity and was received by the Pope on that basis. Obviously, in doing so, neither the Vatican as a whole, nor the Pope personally, was in any way endorsing a pro-abortion point of view, and neither are we."

Here's the link to the Zenit article about this.

As you know from the conference programme, we have another main speaker, Janne Haaland Matlary, who has been a member of the Holy See delegations to various UN conferences with Mary Ann Glendon and others. She has been featured in Zenit on several occasions, including when she published her book on her conversion to Catholicism. You might be interested to know the abstract she sent me of her talk:

"JHM will address the importance of human rights for women at a time when they are discriminated against in severe terms in many places, in not being granted equality. She discusses how the UNHR of 1948 was quite revolutionary in establishing such equality, but also points out that fundamental human rights have become an instrument for Western feminism, imposed on the Third World. For instance, there is no human right to abortion, as there is no human right to have children. When human rights are used as political tools, also repressive states will be able to define rights as they wish."

There is also time for discussion and debate from the floor.

This seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable explanation. I recommend it to you.

Father Elijah, Cardinal Newman, the Anti-Christ

When my eyes begin to blur and my head spin from reading too much philosophy & theology for the thesis, I turn to popular literature. Right now, I am reading Michael O'Brien's Father Elijah: An Apocalypse. In one scene, Fr. Elijah is on retreat and trying to figure out how he will carry out the Holy Father's request that he approach the Anti-Christ and try to convert him. To help him with these discernment, Father turns to the Advent sermons of John Cardinal Newman on the anti-Christ. I found them on-line. Here's an excerpt from Sermon One:

Malignant principle of Antichrist is always at work

2. Now, in the next place, what is told us about Antichrist by the sacred writers? This first of all, as has been already noticed, that he embodies a certain spirit, which existed even in the days of the Apostles. "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." "Even now there are many Antichrists." And what that spirit is, St. John declares in a subsequent chapter. " Every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is not of GOD; and this is that spirit of the Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." Here we see what its doctrine is to be; but on that I shall not here enlarge. I am speaking of its working, which had begun in the days of the Apostles, and has doubtless continued ever since. Doubtless this malignant principle has been at work since from time to time, though kept under by him that "withholdeth." Nay, for what we know, at this very time there is a fierce struggle, the spirit of Antichrist attempting to rise, and the political power in those countries which are prophetically Roman, firm and vigorous in repressing it. What that spirit is, it would be beside my purpose here to attempt to ascertain, any more than to enlarge upon its doctrine; though certainly there is at this very time, as in the days of our fathers, a fierce and lawless principle every where at work,-a spirit of rebellion against GOD and man, which the powers of government in each country can barely keep under with their greatest efforts. Whether this which we witness be that spirit of Antichrist, which is one day to be let loose, this ambitious spirit, the parent of all heresy, schism, sedition, revolution, and war,-whether this be so or not, certainly the present framework of society and government, as far as it is the representative of Roman power, would seem to be that which withholdeth, and Antichrist is that which will rise when this restraint fails.

All four sermons are available at the link above.

Here's the text & podcast of my one of my "devilish" homilies. . ."With the Devil in the Desert " (1st Sunday of Lent 2006)

03 December 2008

More questions and a China story...

Random questions. . .

1). Tell me about your time in China.

Even though I was there for only five months, those five months could make a good-sized book. II finished my masters in English in May of 1989 and decided that the life of a student was getting to be frustrating and possibly even mentally damaging! Through a fellow grad student in my department, I arranged a teaching contract with the Chinese government to teach English, American literature, and literary theory. In the fall of 1990, I arrived in Changsha, Hunan to teach in the foreign language college of Changsha Institute, a university of about 55,000 students operated by the transportation department of the government. My contract stipulated that I would teach no more than five classes per term. That I would be paid in foreign exchange currency (FEC) and not the local "monolopy money." My salary was set at 1,300 Yuan a month. This was 13x's what an average worker made in year! That I would have access to a car and a driver when necessary. There were other items but these were the important ones for understanding why I left when I did. My room and board were free. I lived on-campus and ate my meals in the faculty dining room. Next door lived an older Swiss couple who spoke only French and Spanish.

The teaching was a HUGE challenge. First, the university broke its own contract by giving me nine classes with a total of 320 students. I taught everything from sophomore oral English to a graduate seminar in contemporary literary theory. I taught all "classes" of students, meaning first, second, and third class students--respectively, the future diplomats and party official,s the future college and secondary school teachers, and the tourist industry workers. My students ranged from "better than me in English grammar" to "can barely say hello and thank you in English." The third class students were herded into my classrooms, and I was expected to train them like seals to bark out polite English phrases. The first class students were the least interested in learning b/c their places in Chinese society were already fixed. The second class students were the brightest and most eager to learn. . .more so than even the grad students.

Outside the classroom, I was in demand to give public poetry readings, talks on American culture, music, politics; tell stories about growing up in the U.S.; even answer the occasional question on religion. At the time, I was an alienated Episcopalian and firm Marxist. I kept the Marxist label to myself b/c I would have lost credibility with the students. My social life was pretty dead. I was the only American, the only native English speaker in that part of the city (3.5 million in 1990). There was a large group of American undergraduates teaching at a middle school about 30 minutes away. On the weekends I was a welcomed guest. I made ten times the money these guys did and I had nothing to spend it one but food and beer. So, I was the sugardaddy for the weekend gatherings.

Problems began to arise almost immediately. First, the university was monitoring my every move. My mail arrived opened. My phone was tapped. I was followed off-campus. Books I checked out of the library were recorded. Visitors were registered before being allowed to come on-campus. Second, the university would not pay me in FEC. I got Chinese monopoly money instead. This meant that I could not exchange my outrageously high Chinese salary for dollars. Third, I was going crazy from lack of friends and regular social engagement. On a regular basis my students would disappear out of town. No warning to me. No word at all that I would be going a week without classes to teach. I would show up on a Monday morning and there would be no students. I would do this until they reappeared. So, I would go for days without seeing or speaking to another person. If the American undergrads would out of town or busy, I would go for several weeks. I had a Chinese university employee who was responsible for herding me around and he actually became a friend, but his superiors were constantly chiding him for spending too much time with me.

The final straw came in November when I called home and found out that my grandmother's surgery for cancer had failed and that she was dying. With everything going on in the university, without any emotional or spiritual support, without any way to stay in touch with my family, I couldn't imagine staying in China through my grandmother's death. I decided to leave. The university made an effort to keep me on, but there was nothing they could do about my family situation. I left on Dec. 1, 1990 and returned to Mississippi. My grandmother died in January 1991.

Looking back three things are pretty obvious to me now: 1) I was not emotionally mature enough at 26 to take on an overseas adventure that large, that foreign; 2) I was not spiritually strong enough to combat the forces allied against me in the guise of Marxist ideology and the frequent assaults of Protestant fundamentalism coming from some of the American "teachers" in the city; 3) my problems can run as fast as I can, and they have a better sense of direction. Interestingly enough, my name is on a list somewhere here in Rome as a friar with experience in China and a potential missionary for work in the PRC. Yea, not so sure about that. . .

2). Is the Catholic faith scriptural?

Of course. All of the teachings of the Church are based on scripture and none contradict it. However, it can't be said often enough that the Catholic faith is not a "religion of the book," but rather a living, breathing Church, the Body of Christ. Yes, of course, we take the bible seriously and look to scripture for the truths of the faith. But the Bible cannot interpret itself. It must be read, interpreted, and implemented in the real world. This is why Jesus gave us the church and gave the church the authority she needs to interpret and implement the teachings of scripture. When it comes to interpreting the Bible there are three choices: do your yourself, allow the church to do it for you, or do it with the Church as a member of the Body. The first choice is the Protestant way. The second is the cultist way. The third is the Catholic way. Be careful in discussions with non-Catholic Christians that you do not let me browbeat you into the "where is that in the Bible?" stick. If they try that, counter with: "Show me in the Bible where it says that that has to be in the Bible in order for me to believe it." The Catholic Church does not see the Bible as the sole means of divine revelation. There are three means--scripture, creation, Jesus Christ (the two natured person & his Body, the Church) and one source--God Himself. However, if for whatever reason you feel compelled to argue scripture with your Protestant friends, here's a great website to help you: Scripture Catholic. Just keep in mind: as Catholics we do not need scriptural proof-texts for our beliefs; so, the charge--"that's not in the Bible"--is really no big deal for us.

3). What do you think of Obama's cabinet picks?

Ugh. Politics again. Very briefly: I've said before on this blog that I believe Obama is a liberal Democrat, a typical politician. Nothing special as someone who runs and wins public office. That he is black and the first black to become President is a wonderful historical moment, but as a public servant, he's just a politician. His cabinet picks prove this. He appealed to the extreme left-wing of his party. Won the election. Now he is moving swiftly to the center. Predictable. Absolutely nothing surprising here. I think he's going to focus on the economy b/c his eyes are already scanning the deck of the 2012 re-election campaign. As long as the economy is bad, he will keep the SanFran/NYC liberals and their agendas at bay. He needs a Democrat Congress in 2010, and he know he will not get that if his main concerns become same-sex marriage and expanding abortion rights. So, let's see. I'm watching to see how he treats the Church when it comes to issues like publicly funded abortions and Catholic hospitals.

Also, I am waiting, no doubt in vain, for the MSM to start doing its job and providing the voting public with unbiased information about the Obama administration and its policies. All I'm seeing right now is talk show fluff, sycophantic doodling, celebrity-esque panting, and the very, very rare, "Hey, wait a minute. . .didn't he say something about change at one point?" Not enough. Not by far. With his leadership inexperience and his history of fraternizing with domestic terrorists and radicals, every decision he makes needs to be scrutinized in public with a microscope. I just wished we had a media willing and able to do this.